The Presidential security offer started lacking cred when Bhutto was shot. I am not saying that is totally right, but you can understand how that incident caused concern. If they couldn't protect just her how can a team of 20 blokes be safe. There are legitimate concerns that noone is untouchable in Pakistan, whatever the security

As has been pointed out, Benazir was specifically targeted. Also, she was at a public rally, against the advice of the security provided to her. The foreign teams will be provided Presidential-level security, and are not likely to attend political rallies. Going by past precedent, their hotel rooms would only hold them as guests, no unauthorized person/car would be allowed anywhere near them, and they would travel with a ratio of like 20 security officials per team member.

I used the Bhutto example to show the fallability of Pakistani security. Point I am making re India is that terrorist causes in India revolve around Kashmir. In Pakistan the anti western movement would be much larger.

I used the Bhutto example to show the fallability of Pakistani security

But the fallibility of Indian security with the attack on Parliament is not valid?

Originally Posted by MrHat

Point I am making re India is that terrorist causes in India revolve around Kashmir.

Except there was a huge bomb blast in Jaipur not long ago. And there have been big blasts in Bombay as well. If it happens in Jaipur or Bombay, it's just something to deal with, but if they happen in Karachi or Peshawar, it's something to boycott?

But the fallibility of Indian security with the attack on Parliament is not valid?

Except there was a huge bomb blast in Jaipur not long ago. And there have been big blasts in Bombay as well. If it happens in Jaipur or Bombay, it's just something to deal with, but if they happen in Karachi or Peshawar, it's something to boycott?

A bomb planted in the produce market of Jaipur and the produce market of Karachi has very little difference in terms of the target demographic.

I am going around in circles. Australia is more likely to be targetted by jihadists in Pakistan than in India. We can agree to disagree on this. This is one of the reasons they are less willing to go to Pakistan, that and general greater level of violence, although if this changing so will attitudes but that will take time. Though I'd be sure CA don't want Jaipur on their next itinery. I am not saying Australia will get blown up when they are in Pakistan next, I am saying that these concerns are not BS. Gn...

I'd like to see them play in medieval armour with jousting sticks. And when the opposition batsman comes creaking to the crease someone in the Australian slips cordon would say 'Jousting sticks...what's he askin'...and the batsmen would go '$250'...and the slips could would all say in unison 'Tell him he's dreamin'.

I'd be sitting on the lounge at home with tears running down my face and wet pants.

Interesting placement of a reference to The Castle.

"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

I used the Bhutto example to show the fallability of Pakistani security. Point I am making re India is that terrorist causes in India revolve around Kashmir. In Pakistan the anti western movement would be much larger.

You seem to have gotten it into your head that every other terrorist in Pakistan is out to kill any American/European/Australian guy he meets...

I can understand why the Aussies are reluctant to tour. It is because of previous precedents set by their predecessors and somehow, a stigma has been attached to touring Pakistan (wrongly, IMO). So I can understand why those guys are so reluctant but honestly, there is no way to defend it as the right thing. The best thing you can say about their concerns is that they are perhaps understandable, but no way are they justifiable.

There are places in India where the threat is just as high as there is in Pakistan and yet Aussies don't have a problem because of two reasons:

a. There is no such stigma attached with India as there is with Pakistan (mainly based on wrong perceptions, if I may add that)

b. Money. Moolah does talk and they all know that there is a good amount of money to be made if you are an Aussie cricketer touring India. The Ads, the IPL contracts and now even Bollywood cameos being on the anvil makes it a more viable proposition and they are willing to take that chance against security advice.

At the end of the day, the blame should sit with CA for not being man enough to send the players (whoever are ready to play) on tour. I am sure if there is one tour by an Aussie team to Pak, even the players who have concerns will be ready to tour the next time.

We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.